Safeguarding Our Grand Heritage

Forest and Bird, Issue 183, 1 February 1972, Page 1

Safeguarding Our Grand Heritage

THE year 1971 has passed. It brought many problems causing anxiety to the Council of the Society; it also brought some compensations. The report of the Select Committee which dealt with our Manapouri Petition recommended that no decision to raise the levels of Lake Manapouri should be made except by Parliament. We can regard this as merely a breathing space.

We find no cause for optimism in the recommendation that the dam at the confluence of the Mararoa and Waiau Rivers should be built strong enough to enable the lake to be raised if it is decided to raise it, which involves an extra cost of perhaps about $3,500,000. Would any responsible body spend so much money on something it was not sure would ever be needed?

We were not reassured by the statement, made at the handing over of the power plant, that the village would be left intact to house the workers who would be needed to clear the lake shores of bush. We find small comfort in reports of officials addressing organisations and stressing the economic value of the aluminium industry to the country. Is this a public relations campaign to condition the public to the idea that the lake levels must be raised? We congratulate the Comalco Company on having a report on the economic value of the aluminium industry made by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research. It was a good public relations effort, and here we should make it clear that we have no antagonism toward the aluminium industry.

However, we should point out that in the preface of the report, the following appears: “When it accepted the assignment, the Institute was of course aware that the agreement between the Crown and Comalco was the object of some criticism, notably in respect of the raising of Lake Manapouri. As the terms of reference show, it was never envisaged that the study should evaluate the pros and cons of raising the lake; indeed the necessary assumption throughout is that the lake will be raised in due course, as required by the agreement.” It will be seen that the Institute was not required to assess the value of the industry without interference with the lake levels, nor of any consequences of supplying the comparatively small volume of extra power needed from time to time from alternative sources.

A major project publicised during the year was that of the utilisation of beech forests for paper pulping purposes. The Society has made its stand known in this matter; it was discussed in the November issue of Forest and Bird.

Anxiety has been caused by reports of attempts to secure permits to mine minerals in the Auckland Islands, which are a very interesting and beautiful habitat for millions of sea birds and which have been set aside as fauna and flora reserves. Concern has also been felt because of reports of applications to prospect and mine in two of our national parks, Egmont and Fiordland. Discussing this move, a Press Association message sent out from Wellington on 2 December said the Government of New Zealand would assist the mining company concerned in prospecting Mount George by providing up to $30,000 on a dollar-for-dollar basis and had also asked for an option to purchase 225,000 shares at par for cash. This is in our greatest national park. Where is the sanctity we thought these national parks and reserves possessed? Other applications from business institutions to exploit our wonderful seashore scenic gems for private gain are also of concern. And continuing operations to convert more areas of the mamaku native forests to exotics has caused the Society to make representations to the Minister.

We find encouragement, however, in the act of the Nature Conservation Council in inviting all concerned to submit opinions on the proposed beech forest utilisation plans, in the letter published elsewhere in this issue from the Environmental Council, in the address given by the Director-General of Forests (also published in this issue), and in the decision of a large gathering of representatives of outdoor organisations to form an association under the name of COENCO to deal with all matters of common interest with a united voice.

On 11 September at Lausanne, Switzerland, the World Wildlife Fund held its tenth anniversary meeting, attended by 550 guests from 43 different countries. Below are extracts from two speeches at that gathering, which we commend for earnest thought by all concerned, including those who occupy the seats of power and retain them by the will of the people.

By Mr Peter Scott, World Wildlife Fund vice-president: “But there is another more philosophical element in the conservation message — the concept of responsibility to future generations, the issue of principles, the right and wrong of destroying the irreplaceable or extinguishing unique species. Many people believe that the material arguments are the only cogent ones in this day and age, but whatever the cynics may say, vast numbers of ordinary people are motivated by their principles, motivated to do things they believe to be right. And it’s in this direction that I see so much change during the past 10 years, and so much prospect of even greater change indicated by the youth of today — change which, in my view, has to come swiftly if there is to be any hope for the survival of life on our earth, and swiftly I believe it will come ...”

By Mr U Thant, recently retired Secretary-General of the United Nations: “The next years will be critical for much of the world’s wildlife and your work will therefore be of even greater importance. The human race will soon be forced to revise some of its present priorities. One can easily imagine how much money and effort we would be willing to devote to preserve an animal species on the moon if the astronauts had found one. No species on earth is less precious. No effort should be spared to save unique and irreplaceable products of millions of years of evolution with which our small planet has been endowed.”

These words are applicable to the unique plants, birds, and scenic gems of New Zealand. The world has nothing finer to offer, and we have the responsibility of safeguarding this grand heritage. The very least we should insist on is that the areas set aside as national parks and reserves shall remain inviolate and not be “for sale” when somebody comes along with an attractive bid.